|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1238 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... ace and expenditure. Be it as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has produced sufficient evidence before the Lower authorities in support of his claim of incurring expenditure on staff salaries. The disallowance is made on surmises and in a Ad-hoc manner. Thus we allow this ground of the assessee. 7. Coming to the issue of Service tax, the assessee has produced copies of challans, evidencing payment of service tax. The Assessing Officer, without any verification, enquiry or investigation, rejected the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also, has in our opinion, wrongly rejected the claim of the assessee. As this is a payment of taxes and as it is evidenced by challans paid to Government, the verification is very easy. In our view, the same should be allowed. In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... would agree for referring the matter for mediation, which may preferably be conducted by Exchairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes alongwith an expert mediator. Counsel for the parties say that one month time be given them to have instructions in the matter. We, accordingly, adjourn the matter to 31.01.2013.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1221
... ...
... ... ..... in respect of the same transaction and such disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint and if it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first Court should be given by the High Court by imposing heavy costs. 39. In the present Cases, both the lower Courts have dismissed the complaints and acquitted the accused. In the case of "Khedu Mohan" (supra), the Apex Court has held that if on the evidence on record, two views are possible and one view is adopted by the trial Court, there is no scope for interference by the High Court against that order even if the High Court is inclined to accept the other view. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Magistrates of Ponda and Panaji Courts are in accordance with the settled principles of law and no interference is warranted. In the result, I pass the following ORDER All the above criminal appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1220
... ...
... ... ..... Court for disbelieving the Identification Parade, this Court does not see reasons to reverse the findings of the Sessions Court on this point. 17. To show that the boy was found in the custody of the accused persons and the boy was got released from the clutches of the accused persons from the Farm House of Mutthagi village, Bijapur District, the witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution. When the trial Court has considered the entire evidence led by the prosecution after properly appreciating the evidence and when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is difficult for the Appellate Court to reverse the findings against the judgment of the acquittal. We do not see any valid reasons to reverse the findings of the Sessions Court. Accordingly, we answer the point formulated by us against the State. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1219
Quashing of order by HC - Entitlement for Profit of the Hotel business and its Ownership - False and fabricated Documents - In this case the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership.it was also alleged by the respondent, that false and fabricated documents was used by appellant suit claiming tenancy of the shop.
HELD THAT:- While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Therefore, The High Court has quashed the complaint as it discloses civil dispute and same has been filed by the Appellant making similar grievance and is pending.
The entire proceedings of Criminal Case including false and fabricated documents are also quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law and the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is also set aside.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... n the context of the objects of the trust which are not alleged to be genuine. The basic purpose of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 12AA is to check the mis-use of the exemption under the pretext of carrying out the charitable activities when the same are not so. The CIT(A) has to make out clear case for exercising the powers u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. Unfounded and baseless allegation without any evidence are of no use. The CIT could have himself carried out the investigation to prove that the activities of the assessee are not genuine or not in accordance with the object. So far as the object of the trust is concerned, nowhere it is disputed that the assessee is engaged in imparting the education. In our opinion, the order passed by the CIT- IV, Pune, does not stand to the test contemplated in Sub-section (3) to Sec. 12AA of the Act. We, accordingly, cancel the same. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1217
... ...
... ... ..... shing the material facts whereas the assessee was found to be deficient in furnishing the proper closing stock. However, if the contention of the assessee that because of non-inclusion of ₹ 22 lakhs in closing stock of this year the assessee has shown more income of ₹ 22 lakhs in the subsequent year then it cannot be held that the suppression of closing stock was with the intention of evade payment of tax. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it shall be fair and in the interest of justice, to restore this part of the ground of appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and thereafter adjudication afresh as per law in the light of the observation herein above after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, accordingly, modify the order of the CIT(A) to the above extent. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 21st of December, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1216
... ...
... ... ..... ck of gold jewellery Rs. 1,37,51,760.00 b. Income surrendered on account of excess stock of diamond Rs. 4,37,56,159.00 c. Income surrendered on account of excess Cash found from the business as well as Residential premises of partners of assessee Firm Rs. 16,82,509.00 d. Income surrendered and utilised by sh. Anil Talwar by withdrawing the same from firm Rs. 8,27,572.00 Total income surrendered u/s 132(4) Rs. 6,00,00,000.00 “ The above matches with the surrender of Rs. 6 crores made by the assessee during search u/s 132(4). Therefore, there is no difference in the stock found during the search and the amount of surrender made by the assessee. In these circumstances we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 53 In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 81/Chd/2013 is dismissed. 54 In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.9.2013
-
2012 (12) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... the revenue is in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the orders of the CIT(A) while the learned DR supported the order of the AO. 29. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the assesee is liable to pay property tax to BBMP and the only dispute is with regard to the quantum of the property tax to be paid. Therefore, it is clear that there is a liability fastened on the assessee to pay the property tax. The assesee has deposited part of the demand raised by the BBMP as per the directions of the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the liability has not crystallized as that it is not tax paid by the assessee. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee will show the refund as income in the year of receipt but the tax is allowable only in the year of payment. 30. In view of the same, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Dec, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... 8/6/2012 in SA No.192/Mum/2012 and as the appeal has already been heard and order is likely to be pronounced, we are of the opinion that it will serve the interest of justice if the stay is extended till the disposal of the appeal or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier as it was submitted by Ld. A.R that date of pronouncement of order is fixed in the next week. If for any reason, the order is not pronounced within the aforementioned period of two months, then assessee shall submit a fresh application of stay. We direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 7th day of Dec. 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1213
... ...
... ... ..... by the respondent/defendant in that case by way of an interim application, was well founded or not; and the Court ultimately disagreed with the defendant on this aspect of the matter. But there is nothing to suggest that having decided that Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would not operate as a bar to the institution of the suit; it was also decided that the matter was not controlled by Article 74 of the Limitation Act 1963; or that Article 74 had no application whatsoever to the case as being contended by counsel for the appellant at the bar. 15. Except for a general submission, which is repeated many times, that the period of limitation in such a case is three years; Counsel for the appellant is unable to show any other provision of the Limitation Act, which may apply to the matter instead of Article 74 thereof. 16. In that view of the matter, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order, and I do not find any merit in this appeal. 17. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1212
... ...
... ... ..... year 1999 onwards only whereas petitioner has resigned in the year 1997, impugned FIR is second one and more particularly complainant/respondent No.2 was very much aware about the activities of the company right from the year 1996, but they waited till the year 2002 - 2003 and tried to harass the petitioner by not disclosing the correct information to the police while filing the impugned FIR, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 15. The petition is allowed as prayed for. Thereby, the FIR being C.R.No.I-861 of 2003 pending with the Navrangpura Police Station upon complaint by the present respondent No.2 on 23.9.2003, is hereby quashed against present petition. Thereby it is made clear that the quashing is with reference to the present petitioner only and even said original complainant/respondent No.2 has right to take action against the company or its Directors as per law and they are free to take action in accordance with law. 16. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... s transferred from share application money to investment in unquoted shares. The learned CIT(A) also recorded a finding after considering the remand report that the assessee has properly explained the investment in different companies which was added by the Assessing Officer on protective basis. A finding was also recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that no fresh funds were received in the year under appeal, which is as per material on record. Since there is no increase in overall investment, nor in loans and advances, we are in agreement with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that no addition is warranted u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order and the findings of the learned CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections which are basically in support of the order of CIT(A) become infructuous in view of our dismissing the revenue’s appeal. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1210
... ...
... ... ..... ing Officer, but Assessing Officer did not record their evidences. We further find that a sum of ₹ 4,13,000/- said to have been received from the assessee’s father was not received during the current year, but it was an opening balance in his hands received in earlier years. We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a finding that the other persons given the loans had income from salaries; their income tax returns were submitted; their cash books were also produced, which showed sufficient cash balance in their hands. Hence, we find that the assessee has submitted sufficient evidence and the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 on account of alleged unexplained credit is not sustainable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and hence, we uphold the same. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1209
... ...
... ... ..... Ys 2005-06 & 2006-07 ITAT “B” Bench Ahmedabad in ITA Nos.1532 & 1533/Ahd/2009(respectively) titled as “The DCIT vs. Amigo Securities Pvt.Ltd.” vide an order dated 21/09/2012 has arrived at the conclusion that as follows - “6. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that since the assessee has demonstrated that there was sufficient reserves, share capital and interest-free advances stated to be to the tune of ₹ 1988.26 lacs in A.Y. 2005-06 and ₹ 1827.39 lacs for A.Y. 2006-07, then the decision of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) is to be applied on these facts. Resultantly, we hereby confirm the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss these grounds of the Revenue for both the years.” 6. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1208
... ...
... ... ..... hat originally the disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal and the deduct ion was allowed. This itself shows that the claim was of debatable nature. Further we find that in case of CIT V. Buddhewal Coop Sugar Mills (supra), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has deleted the penal t y. In that case it was held as under “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the society had paid advance tax as well as self -as sessment tax not taking into account the deduct ion claimed u/ s 80P(2) (a) (iii) of the Act. It was evident from the facts that the as sessee’s claim was bona fide and that all the particulars relating to the computation of income had been disclosed. Thus, the Tribunal rightly cancelled the penalty levied.” Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty and we confirm the same. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1207
... ...
... ... ..... he course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the same be estimated at 50% of the total receipts. In our considered opinion, having regard to the entire conspicuous of facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to tax the gross receipts of ₹ 26,48,586/- as income and that it would be fair and proper if 60% of the gross receipts be assessed as income earned with regard to services rendered to M/s. Soktas India Pvt. Ltd. With regard to assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 40(b) of the Act on account of salary and interest paid to partners the same be examined by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to re-work the total income assessable in the hands of the assessee as above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 31st December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... has been held as allowable as revenue expenditure. In this case, the AO has not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure or its business purpose or that the expenditure is exceptionally high or of a very special nature. In view of the above discussion, the addition on account of ERP software expenses amounting to ₹ 1,28,91,419/- is deleted. Ground No. 6 is thus decided in favour of the appellant.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard and as such it needs no interference. 18. In the result, ITA No.552/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed. 19. To sum up - (1) ITA No.584/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed. (2) ITA No.551/CTK/2012 filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed. (3) ITA No.552/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1205
... ...
... ... ..... d Gupta (supra). Thus, the revisional court also committed a manifest error by placing reliance on the judgment in the case' of Raisa Sultana Begam (supra) which already stood overruled by the Full Bench in the case of Sunni Central Board (supra). In the aforesaid context and keeping in view the reasons recorded hereinabove, the orders of the trial court and that of the revisional court cannot be sustained. The orders dated 18.8.2012 and 28.9.2012 passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is now directed to first proceed to apply its mind to the application No. 30A-1 coupled with the application No. 32C-2 simultaneously alongwith the other affidavits and objections in relation thereto on record and then proceed to pass an order in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving full opportunity to the contesting parties within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1204
... ...
... ... ..... set off against income under any head. The amount of depreciation allowance not so set off (the "third unadjusted depreciation allowance") shall be carried forward to the following year. The "third unadjusted depreciation allowance" shall be deemed depreciation under section 32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity.” 14 From the above it is clear that unabsorbed depreciation for the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off now. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to only allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is outside the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02. 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 17.12.2012.
........
|
